MODULOS ELASTOMERICOS

Deduame is a small rural farming community in the Bom Municipality with no visible English literate environment, except a few posters in classrooms. Frank Sabah is a General Certificate of Education, Ordinary Level (GCE ‘O’ L.) holder and an ALO now pursuing a course in Credit Management and Finance at a local university by distance education. Frank has local language facilitation experience but no English literacy facilitation qualification or experience.

When I observed him, Frank was ready with his 4 male and 9 female early comers seated on plastic chairs; an arrangement imitating formal school instead of use of small groups or round tables (Knowles, 1970). Others joined one after the other as the class session progressed. The mean age of his male and female learners was 30 years. Most were farmers except two women who were engaged in petty trading. He described his learners as adults who had agreed to undertake English literacy education in the GNFLP.

The chapel where they met was airy and spacious. Frank and his learners had been meeting for about seven months meaning they are still at the beginning level.

Frank linked the essence of literacy in education to the ability to avoid a situation of the unquestioning and unanalytical acceptance of what is said, especially by religious leaders. Adults who have not had the chance of formal education have a lot of problems because they are unable to read and write and unable to effect changes in their lives, such as go through voting procedures. Leading a church-based class, he explained that churches need adults who can read the Bible, especially in the local languages and in English. He felt that when it is only the pastor who can read and understand the Bible, it was only what is preached that was accepted by congregants. He expressed it as:

…So people say ‘pastor says’ because the person cannot get the chance to read and understand the Bible him or herself (Frank Sabah, 2015).

Thus, the learners’ orientation to learning was to gain the ability to read the religious materials (Knowles, 1970). He viewed facilitation of literacy education as a continuous process as well as the use of tools and techniques (Kato, 2010) that involve ‘training that adult learner to become viable in society’. He feels literacy is helpful in our daily lives because it gives people functional skills in the larger social circles. In his opinion:

Literacy in our social life helps a lot because in our daily life we have to read, we have to travel and need to read signposts or billboards. We have to know what is written there. You will enter some places; ‘Do not urinate here’ and you see somebody urinating there because he couldn’t see what is on that place. So, it improves our social lives (Frank Sabah, 2015).

He added that literacy also enables people to keep their secrets, a reason for his ensuring that he facilitated the application of the literacy that he taught his learners. For example, helping his learners apply their new reading and writing skills on specifically sending and receiving text messages on their mobile phones. This, he believed will avoid depending on others.

From Frank’s experience, improvement in individual lives gained from participation in literacy activities also benefits the communities. In his opinion, non-literate women were especially challenged on how to communicate and contribute effectively in the community decision-making process, a situation they overcome through participation.

Frank recognised that the adults’ prior knowledge was a strong factor in the facilitation of adult literacy education, since adult literacy education differs from formal education (Kato, 1970; Knowles, 1988, 1977, 1970) because:

…we know that the adult learner is already abreast of so many things. The adult learner knows about everything. It is just to be trained to know how to read and write and apply those things. So that’s why it differs from other levels of education (Frank Sabah, 2015).

Like Wilhelm, he emphasised that although facilitation is also a leadership position, it is not a power driven kind of leadership:

We are there to change the lives of the adult learner, but not to lord it over them. We mingle ourselves with them because the adult learner knows even more than you... It is because he cannot read and write. So if you want to prove yourself as a leader, most of them will not come. ... You do everything with them. You even at times visit them in their houses… (Frank Sabah, 2015).

Frank re-emphasised his notion that adult learners were already knowledgeable and that the facilitator’s role was just to ‘straighten them to be part of society’ in line with the concepts of andragogy (Knowles, 1970). He asserted that the wrong display of power goes against good facilitation as it demeans learners and could even result in drop out. Frank held a view similar to Wilhelm’s concerning the power wielded by learners also. He said:

Yes. The learners have power. Because without them, you can’t do anything. If you go to a class and the learners are not there, there is nothing you can do. That’s why we have to mingle with them, know their concerns so that they also come… (Frank Sabah, 2015).

Frank believed however that a good ALO could moderate learner power. Although learners enrolled to learn, they become despondent along the way and need convincing of the benefits to persevere. There was therefore the need for facilitators to constantly encourage and convince the adult learners to remain in the literacy classes. He captured some despairing learners’ views about their participation as:

Some will say, at my age why should I go and learn again. ‘Am I going to write a degree or SSCE? But you have to convince the person that you need it in your daily life… to read the Bible, read other stories at your leisure times to improve your life (Frank Sabah, 2015).

To Frank, the facilitator’s job was to guide learners, encourage them and motivate them to always be present in class. Frank observed that although learners hear people speak English and they might get to understand some words, they feel shy to demonstrate their newly acquired English language skills. So it is critical for the facilitator to guide,

support and empower them, that no matter the mistakes they make initially, they will gain fluency with practice.

Frank further noted that in the local language literacy class, the learners and their facilitators could communicate effectively in the local language leaving only the facilitation of the ability to read, write and be numerate. This was different in the English language literacy class, where in addition to facilitating reading, writing, speaking and being numerate in English, the facilitator has to ensure that s/he communicates meaningfully with the learners to facilitate learning. Unless learners became conversant with some of the English words, the facilitator is unable to communicate with them in the target language. So this explained why facilitators use translation into the local language in an English language class. Frank expressed the reason for translation as follows:

So we marry both languages to make them understand, to make them understand more effectively (Frank Sabah, 2015).

With comprehension comes expression by the learners. Through observing Frank’s facilitation in the class, translation was indeed being used, as illustrated in the class observation data clip that follows:

ALO: Twenty six. Clap for her! So out of this twenty six, we have consonants and

vowels. How many vowels do we have? Twenty six. Clap for her! So out of this

twenty six, we have consonants and vowels. How many vowels do we have? [ALO

repeats the question in Ewe]. [Learners clapped]

Learner Maama [A queen]: Five.

ALO: Clap for Maama! What about the consonants. So out of the 26, we said we have

5 vowels. Consonants, how many do we have? [Calls Chairman].

Learner Chairman: 21

ALO: Clap for Chairman. So out of these consonants… out of the alphabet in English

language we have twenty one consonants and five vowels. So out of these

consonants, errr, out of the alphabet in English language we have twenty one consonants and five vowels. Can we point out some vowels so we progress to the

consonants? Can we point out some of the consonants on the board? What we have learnt already. Can we point out some of the consonants on the board? What we

have learnt already. Ehee Chairman…

ALO: Clap for her. Okay. Let’s see whether we can recollect the meanings of these

words. Let’s see whether we can recollect the meanings of these words. [Repeats his statement in the local language…].What is the meaning of queen? What is queen?

What is the meaning of queen? What is queen? Chairman! [ALO calls Chairman but

a female learner gives the answer].

In the two scenarios, it is observed that learners give simple answers, some even in the local language, which all resulted in their colleagues and even the facilitator breaking into laughter. Frank said that learners felt shy to express themselves in English for fear of being ridiculed when they make mistakes. He said this was due to their own self-doubt and worst of all, the ridicule and teasing from colleagues both within and outside the classes. Adults do not like to be judged (Knowles, 1970). As such, these learners need to be guided and encouraged. He narrates the strategy that they were taught to use to address these situations as follows:

Because the person may feel embarrassed, next time he [sic] will not come. So any idea that the person brings out, we hear it, so another person should give another idea. So we say this person’s answer is the best (Frank Sabah, 2015).

All learners who give answers are appreciated for exhibiting courage in answering, whether the answer is right or wrong. A facilitator is not expected to give a negative comment to warrant embarrassment. S/he is rather expected to select and emphasise the correct answer whilst finding tactful ways of correcting the wrong answer. Although Frank said his learners, despite these learning challenges, enrolled to learn English, there are other orientation to learning such as financial gain and sight assistance among others.

Frank’s learners wanted some extra income generation activities to enable them put into practice the new knowledge and skills which would help them improve on their lives. He added that learners perceived that literacy alone in itself would not contribute to the improvement of all aspects of their lives, but Frank was convinced that his facilitation would help them meet some expectations. He indicated that when people met his learners outside the class and communicated in simple English with them, they were able to respond appropriately thus reflecting improvement in their lives. They responded to questions like “How are you? I am fine”. “What are you doing? I am cooking or I am doing…” So they can express themselves in such things’.

Like Wilhelm, Frank said although the Facilitator’s Manual has instructions on teaching the English Primer he did not follow it strictly.

As observed, after leading the blending of consonants and vowels to form meaningful words, Frank facilitated the construction of sentences and the understanding of key

words. He said his lessons ended on facilitating numeracy learning. He described his method as ‘all-inclusive’ which he believed was influencing their learning a lot. When asked to explain what he meant by that statement, he responded that when he introduced a topic, he invited their views. This made everybody express themselves and come to a common understanding until they came to the final answer. He said in his class, all answers are correct but there is a best answer. So, his learners accepted the best answer which he believed stuck best in their minds.

As part of his all-inclusive method, Frank said he deployed a lot of literacy songs as a tool to influence the mood and status of his learners (Kato, 2010) thus influencing the character of the learning (Knowles, 1970). He asserted that these activities relieved them of a lot of problems, which they might have brought along. During the observation, songs were sung in both the local language and English, and learners seemed to enjoy the activity. But to Frank, his most important influence was to guide the adult learner bring out the hidden potentials in them.

Frank affirmed that brainstorming and acting in an adult English literacy class were very important principles he employs. Because the learners had knowledge, at times they brought out important ideas to bear on the learning process which he, the facilitator, lacked. This enables him to also learn from them. He considered some of them as very intelligent, asking him questions that set him going for more research to answer. He phrased his opinion about the special and collaborative learning relationship he had with his learners as good, creating the necessary climate, space and freedom for learning. He also employed word cards and talking sticks8 _{to encourage all to participate in an}

organized way. The talking stick, especially, gained the participation of the shy ones as they were forced to accept the stick and get involved. This collaborative spirit even became a fun situation when the stick was passed. Although the stick enlists involvement and participation, Frank said there was a process. The facilitator gets the

8 _{A piece of stick or an object that is passed on to a participant indicating being given the authority to}

speak or to act. It is a way of controlling group participation and enabling everyone to voice or do something in a group learning situation.

first person to volunteer. Subsequently, the learners help to involve their colleagues in the activities. He said:

…We use first the introduction. You have to teach them first before they can participate. … You can’t just go and say: okay, take the talking stick and …. You have to introduce them and drill it with them (Frank Sabah, 2015).

Even when they felt some hesitation, their own colleagues and the facilitator guided them engendering participatory learning (Brookfield, 1986). The talking stick however was not used throughout all the interactions because the facilitator applied it only when he wanted to find out his learners’ understanding. Asked about what unique thing he had introduced into his facilitation work, Frank mentioned the mobile phone because it is not in the curriculum and they have been using it only for receiving and making calls. He did not explain how he facilitated the use of the mobile phone.

Of course, the Facilitator’s Manual for the English literacy programme directs that the facilitator ‘be innovative and exercise a lot of initiative in handling the various topics’ (NFED, 2001c: 3). So, Frank could be right or might be claiming too much, as I could not ascertain this. Frank added that whenever he perceived that his learners’ orientation to learning was different, he facilitated that (Knowles, 1970). However, he never sought their involvement in the decision-making. To Frank, it is not about what his learners demanded but what he thought they needed.

One interesting thing that came out of the interview with Frank was his indication that he used the Facilitator’s Checklist9 _{meant for the local language literacy programme to}

assess his learners’ progress. He did not consider the fact that in the local languages, the approach was syllabic. He insisted he used it effectively. Of course, the Manual expects facilitators to be innovative. He explained that:

Eeeh! We don’t teach syllables but the alphabet. And everything they are doing; forming sentences, two letter words and all… they are all in the English Primers… So we use it to assess them (Frank Sabah, 2015).

9 _{Facilitator’s Checklist is a monitoring and assessment instrument developed for use in the local language}

literacy programme. Facilitators are expected to use it to assess the previous knowledge or use it to document the baseline knowledge of the learners against which they measure and record the progress made by their individual learners as the lessons progress. The contents of the local language curriculum and the instructional materials determined the bench marks in the Checklist and the use to assess and monitor the performance of the learners and their facilitator. The English Literacy Programme however has no Facilitator’s Checklist.

Frank’s ‘all-inclusive method’ and his insistence on using the local language Facilitator’s Checklist indicate that he has attached much importance to knowing his own and his learners’ performance. This also reveals the need for a similar document for the English language literacy component of the programme to assist facilitators track their own and their learners’ performance.

Frank was trained first as a supervisor (organizer for local language volunteer facilitators) and also on how to facilitate local language literacy as a stand-in because without that knowledge he could not have supervised effectively. Training provided to the ALOs before the introduction of the 4th _{batch of English classes covered adult learning}

facilitation techniques, class management and report writing on activities, but not English as a subject. Thus, Frank has no previous English literacy facilitation qualification nor experience. His job was administrative, it was therefore not surprising that he found report writing relevant in practice among the many topics treated at the training he received. The training had also been relevant to him because he learnt that facilitating adult learning was different from teaching children (Knowles, 1970):

The difference is that in facilitation, you don’t control. In facilitation, you don’t give orders. But you try to bring the person to your understanding. In normal teaching you just control, you introduce the thing the child has to follow (Frank Sabah, 2015).

Despite this ‘understanding’ of andragogy, he practised the reverse in his class. Frank stood at the front of the class all the time and threw mostly ‘what’ questions at his learners. He ordered and controlled the learners and used polite language sparingly. He also employed a heavy dose of translation. Frank’s authoritative leadership style and translation can be discerned from the scenario presented in the observation data below:

ALO: Clap for him! Any other idea? Ha! Ha! Ha. ‘Root’. What is the meaning of ‘root’? Learner Da Happy: The root of something.

ALO: Root is the beginning of something or the part of a plant that goes into the